Advertisement

The Semantics of Models: A Semiotic Philosophy of Science Approach

  • Björn Kralemann
  • Claas Lattmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7693)

Abstract

This paper addresses a central problem in model theory: the semantics of models. On the basis of determining models as iconic signs, we put forward an integrative semiotic philosophy of science approach that sheds light on two pivotal aspects of models: 1) Models are determined by the semantic structure of a theory as well as by a set of specific attributes of the original; and 2) the representational relation between model and original is based upon a mapping between selected properties of the model and selected properties of its original. Subsequently, these results are refined by integrating a structuralist linguistic perspective that shows that modeling essentially avails itself on the semantic structure of language systems.

Keywords

models semantics modern logic semiotics icons linguistics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aronoff, M., Rees-Miller, J. (eds.): The Handbook of Linguistics. Blackwell, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkin, A.: Peirce’s Theory of Signs. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition) (2010), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
  3. 3.
    Bailer-Jones, D.: Scientific Models in Philosophy of Science. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balzer, W.: Die Wissenschaft und ihre Methoden: Grundsätze der Wissenschaftstheorie. Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, M.: Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1962)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, C.C.: Model theory 1945-1971. In: Henkin, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium held at the University of California, Berkeley, 2nd edn., June 23-30, 1971, pp. 173–186. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cobley, P.: The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. Routledge, London (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deppert, W.: Hierarchische und ganzheitliche Begriffssysteme. In: Meggle, G. (ed.) Analyomen 2. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference “Perspectives in Analytical Philosophy”, vol. 1, Logic, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, pp. 215–225. De Gruyter, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eco, U.: Zeichen. Einführung in einen Begriff und seine Geschichte. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eco, U.: Einführung in die Semiotik, 9th edn. Walter Fink Verlag, München (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Embley, D.W., Thalheim, B.: Handbook of Conceptual Modeling. Theory, Practice, and Research Challenges. Springer, Berlin (2011)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Floridi, L.: Understanding Epistemic Relevance. Erkenntnis 69, 69–92 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Foerster, H.: Cybernetics of Cybernetics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1974)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frigg, R.: Scientific Representation and the Semantic View of Theories. Theoria 55, 49–65 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frigg, R., Hartmann, S.: Models in Science. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition) (2009), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/
  16. 16.
    Giere, R.N.: Using Models to Represent Reality. In: Magnani, L., Nersessian, N.J., Thagard, P. (eds.) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, pp. 41–57. Kluwer, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gorayska, B., Lidsay, R.: The Roots of Relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 301–323 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Granger, C.W.J.: Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica 37, 424–438 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greisdorf, H.: Relevance: An Interdisciplinary and Information Science Perspective. Informing Science 3(2), 67–71 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartmann, S.: Modelle. In: Sandkühler, H.-J. (ed.) Enzyklopädie Philosophie, vol. 2, pp. 1627–1632. Meiner Verlag, Hamburg (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hartshorne, C., et al. (eds.): Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 1–8. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1931–1958)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hasenjaeger, G., Egli, U.: Modell, Modelltheorie. In: Ritter, J., Gründer, K. (eds.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 6, coll. 50–54. Schwabe, Basel (1984)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hitchcock, D.: Relevance. Argumentation 6, 251–270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hjoerland, B., Christensen, S.: Work Tasks and Socio-Cognitive Relevance: a Specific Example. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences and Technology 53, 960–965 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaulbach, F., Mainzer, K.: Modell. In: Ritter, J., Gründer, K. (eds.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 6, coll. 45–50. Schwabe, Basel (1984)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    König, G., Pulte, H.: Theorie. In: Ritter, J., Gründer, K. (eds.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 10, coll. 1128–1154. Schwabe, Basel (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kralemann, B.: Zur Analyse des Modellbegriffs. In: Deppert, W., Köther, K., Kralemann, B., Lattmann, C., Martens, N., Schaefer, J. (eds.) Selbstorganisierte Systemzeiten. Ein interdisziplinärer Diskurs zur Modellierung lebender Systeme auf der Grundlage interner Rhythmen, pp. 145–164. Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kralemann, B.: Umwelt, Kultur, Semantik – Realität. Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kralemann, B., Lattmann, C.: Models as Icons: Modeling Models in the Semiotic Framework of Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Synthese (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lattmann, C.: Icons of novel thought. A new perspective on Peirce’s definition of metaphor (CP 2.277). Semiotica (forthcoming, 2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mahr, B.: Das Modell des Modellseins. In: Dirks, U., Knobloch, E. (eds.) Modelle. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mahr, B.: Die Informatik und die Logik der Modelle. Informatik-Spektrum 32(3), 228–249 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mahr, B.: Intentionality and Modeling of Conception. In: Bab, S., Robering, K. (eds.) Judgements and Propositions – Logical, Linguistic, and Cognitive Issues, pp. 61–87. Logos Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mittelstraß, J., Gabriel, G., Carrier, M.: Art. “ähnlich/Ähnlichkeit”. In: Mittelstraß, J. (ed.) Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, vol. 1, p. 52. Metzler, Stuttgart (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    de Saussure, F.: Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Herausgegeben von Charles Bally und Albert Sechehaye unter Mitwirkung von Herman Lommel, 3rd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Short, T.L.: Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spencer-Brown, G.: Gesetze der Form. Joh. Bohmeier Verlag, Lübeck (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sperber, D., Wilson, D.: Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stachowiak, H.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Wien (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Suarez, M.: Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, 225–243 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suppes, P.: A Comparison of the Meaning and the Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences. Synthese 12, 287–301 (1960)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Trabant, J.: Elemente der Semiotik. A. Francke Verlag, Tübingen (1996)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vaught, R.L.: Model theory before 1945. In: Henkin, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium held at the University of California, Berkeley, 2nd edn., June 23-30, 1971, pp. 173–186. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1979)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis as Mathematical Theory of Concepts and Concept Hierarchies. In: Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.) Formal Concept Analysis. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3626, pp. 1–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wille, R.: Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Concepts. In: Ferré, S., Rudolph, S. (eds.) ICFCA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5548, pp. 314–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Björn Kralemann
    • 1
  • Claas Lattmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für PädagogikChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Klassische AltertumskundeChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations